Number of kids getting extra time in exams MASSIVELY overstated

[noblegiraffe]

Ofqual are withdrawing their statistics on how many children getting extra time and other accommodations in GCSEs and A-levels because they've admitted that they are completely wrong. It's something I know has been referenced quite a few times here so I thought it worth flagging.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/jul/17/ofqual-admits-massively-exaggerating-number-of-students-getting-exam-assistance?

"The new analysis suggests that the actual proportion of students receiving access arrangements – including 25% extra time in exams – is now broadly in line with the proportion of students with special educational needs in the school population."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ofqual-withdraws-access-arrangements-statistics

Candidates can be academically able and still qualify for extra time. It isn’t always one or the other.

I have 2 academically able DC whose additional needs are such that they aren’t educated in a school but have EOTAS/EOTIS packages. They have exam access arrangements, including extra time. One has 50% and one 25%.

I’m an exam invigilator and the irony where I work is that most of the students who have extra time don’t use it! Same with laptops-vast majority don’t use them even if their handwriting is illegible!

There is a skill to using the extra time and I thinking is often lacking, my son has been given a laptop ( as well as handwriting classes and other hand strengthening activities) he doesn’t always use the laptop as he wants to write and be like everyone else, but he loses marks when it is handwritten and teachers have raised concerns that it doesn’t show his actual knowledge level. I am hoping he will start to see the difference himself and then see the benefit.

Yes I wasn’t great at those subjects either so I take your point

I think if some students did more reading of books they would do a lot better

Ah yes the perennial 'read more' rubbish.

My DD read a lot in primary, still didn't help her SPaG.
Then secondary hit and she was so exhausted after a day at school she had no energy left for yet more hard work (which reading is to her due to her dyslexia).

It is almost like saying that if only a deaf person would listen to more music they would get better at picking out different songs. (However I understand that some deaf people can 'feel' music v. well).

If only our DC with learning issues just tried harder....

My DD has tried harder at Maths & English than I ever had to.

Would you?

So you wouldn’t hire my DS who excels at software development and currently works in that field because he has a physical disability that requires him to have extra time as he needs a scribe?

One of the few accessible jobs for wheelchair users and your first priority would be to discriminate against him based on extra time?

They they say disability awareness is improving 🤦🏼‍♀️

I believe there was a bit of a kerfuffle surrounding University Challenge (a Christmas special) where a team member was requesting the questions in writing in advance. So I don’t think real life can always be as accommodating as exams.

I wonder what some of the posters on this thread would make of the 200% extra time one of our candidates had a few years ago.

As you are here, I'd be interested in your opinion on whether Eng Lang is really tighter for time in exams than other subjects (which is my perception from many years on MN), and if so then why the boards do it like that.

@TeenToTwenties
Clearly severe dyslexia is different, but I am convinced that if children read more, the majority would be better at comprehension and would write better too.

Unfortunately the lure of tech means that many get bored easily by books and don’t have the staying power ( I have young adults as well as teens and can see the difference in approach)

I don't think it is especially tight for time - I think the problem is that the candidates aren't taught how to manage that time effectively.

I see lot of excessively long Q5 (in fact one of my own colleagues tells her classes to aim for 4-5 sides... which is horrible advice).

No it isn’t rubbish. We were encouraged to read at school as it developed vocabulary but perhaps your dd is an exception

Yes it would.

Just as the person who runs a marathon in 5hrs45m achieved the same thing as a person who ran it in 3h34m

They both achieved a medal for completing the requirements.

So why are exams time pressured then if not to test quick application ? For example a lawyer couldn’t charge the client for three hours’ work if his colleagues only took one hour because that lawyer had slow processing skills and couldn’t assimilate information and apply the law to them as quickly. Likewise a surgeon taking far longer to do an operation would adversely affect the patient, not to mention the cost to the NHS.

Both complete the task, but the length of time taken means that the quicker employee will be more sought after.

So why are exams time pressured then if not to test quick application?

Time limited not time pressured. Kids are supposed to have enough time to complete it.

But the faster runner is more impressive and top of the shop if medals were handed out. If you saw those stats, you know eh you would be employing, if fast efficiency was your criteria.

No. Because the fastest one might be an utter cunt in real life, regularly turns up late, is homophobic and calls in sick 3 days a month.

Well if a person had dexterity and/or processing issues ... They probably wouldn't applying to be a surgeon, if they were, they wouldn't likely qualify would they???

@BusWankers
Yes so what does their qualification achieve if in reality it won't progress them further? Ok self worth and joy on results day, but it might then lead to wrong choices (for them) as to what they can achieve at A level and beyond.

I do worry whether we are then giving those kids a false sense of what is realistically achievable in the workplace and the competition they might encounter, which in turn leads to massive frustration and disappointment with lots of rejections when firms (particularly in the professions) use their own admissions "tests" . In my job, I see this at first hand.

Fine for those who need a scribe etc, but not (in my view) for "slow processing".

I think it’s unlikely they would able to pursue these careers in the first place

Extra time for slow processing doesn't magically make someone better at maths or French or whatever though. It just enables them to show what they know.

You're talking absolute nonsense.

Since when did you ever work anywhere where your knowledge of what you've learned over the last two years was tested on?

Or have you always been able to talk to colleagues, discuss ideas etc?

Just because someone needs a computer to type an essay doesn't mean they won't make an excellent Spanish Teacher.

And if they need 50% extra time to process and write answers, they will adjust or not even bother applying for roles that require written work to a tight deadline.

This question has already been answered a few times this thread.

GCSEs are not a speed test. The amount if time is entirely adequate for most pupils to show what they know. If it was designed to reward speed, there woukd be some kind of system to give bonus points to thise who hand in their exam paper 15/30/45 minutes before the time is up. employers who need a fast processing speed can and do set speed tests as part of their recruitment - I have had to do numerous high-speed mathematics tests during various recruitment processes throughout my career because my excellent maths grades are not proof of my speed.

Intelligent employers do not assume that a GCSE grade in Geography means that someone can answer quickfire questions on Geography at high speed, it simply means that the person acquired a specific level of knowledge as defined on the subject-specific curriculum At a particular point ij time. No sensible employer is going to assume any particular level of general skill just because someone has 5 GCSEs at grade 5+ or 9 GCSEs at grade 6+. If they need a high processing speed, or high fluid reasoning, or a high working memory, due to the specific demands of the job, they need to test for that separately, not rely on GCSE grades as a proxy for something they are not intended to measure.

Some people on this thread seem to think those with extra time will use their unfairly inflated results to cheat themselves into jobs they don't deserve.

I personally think most people by adulthood have a good idea of their strengths and weaknesses and try to find a job that they can succeed in. Many jobs require thoughtful work, or innovative work, or accurate work, and speed is secondary.

It's all making me feel quite sad.

Nowadays there are different routes that you can take for university.

Johnny sits exams in 3 A levels at the end of 2 years and gets 3 A stars, a UCAS point score of 168 and a place at an RG university.

Mary does a L3 Extended BTEC and at the end of 2 years of coursework is awarded DDD*, a UCAS point score of 168 and a place at the same RG university on the same course.

Johnny might be bright and lazy and knuckled down 2 weeks before the exams, but will probably have forgotten half of it by halfway through August.

Mary may have very poor working memory and processing speed issues that aren't a problem when she can do everything as coursework and take the time to get it right.

Which one is the best employee now?